Pittsburgh History Mystery Deepens

By Paul Lukas, on July 9th, 2014

Click to enlarge

Back on Sunday I wrote about the unusual sight of Willie Stargell wearing a batting helmet with the Pirates’ “smiling pirate” logo. Now we may have another example — or at least the ghost of one. At first glance, the helmet shown on Freddie Patek’s 1971 Topps card (the photo for which was clearly taken when he was still with the Pirates) is logo-free. But let’s take a closer look at the key area of the helmet and compare it to the logo:

Sure looks like the outline of the logo is there on the helmet, no? Not sure if the decal was removed or if Topps did an airbrush job, but it sure seems like something was afoot there. Of course, Patek could have been wearing the exact same helmet Stargell was wearing, although I suspect Pops (who was a big fella) and Freddie (who was not) had significantly different headwear sizes. In any case, big thanks to reader Don Conrad for bringing this one to my attention.

Meanwhile: New ESPN column today — an expanded look at how players and managers changing teams can lead to odd uniform situations at the MLB All-Star Game (similar to Monday’s blog entry, but with more examples), plus a new look at one of my favorite eccentricities — players who wore another team’s batting helmet during the ASG. Check it out there.

NFL News: The good news is that Joe Montana is going to play one last game at Candlestick — a flag football game that will take place this weekend. The bad news is that his jersey will have an ugly-ass HP ad on the sleeve (from Ryan MaquiÃ±ana).

As for the story about the bar not allowing Jerseys, Bar Louie is a chain, I wonder if their other locations in the USA have the same policy or if it just that one place.

JenInChicago|
July 9, 2014 at 10:57 am |

Article states that it’s a chain-wide corporate policy.

terriblehuman|
July 9, 2014 at 10:57 am |

Liverpool’s done okay with their third kits for the last couple of years, while the away kits have been straight ugly.

As for Bar Louie, as far as I can tell, it’s just the Minneapolis location. There was a similar debate at St. Louis Ballpark Village, where the dress code seemed specific enough to target a certain type of clientele.

DenverGregg|
July 9, 2014 at 2:28 pm |

I’ve seen a very similar dress code notice somewhere and I think it may well have been the Denver Bar Louie where we had an office Christmas party.

The current governing party is the Conservative Party but they’re widely regarded as corrupt, the premier resigned earlier this year in scandal, and the government is under attack from the opposition Wild Rose Party (which is even more conservative).

As mentioned in the article, this story has nothing to do with license plate design and everything to do with removing the name “Wild Rose” from license plates.

The only thing that could make this story more politically interesting is if the new plates had “Support the Troops” on it so that it would be impossible to oppose the change without appearing to hate soldiers.

scott|
July 9, 2014 at 8:09 am |

Didn’t the Marlins wear gray jerseys in one game at Wrigley this season?

You just know they will go back to the boring, awful black jerseys. (Because Mr. Snider said so.)

Padday|
July 9, 2014 at 8:23 am |

Ugh. I can’t believe US basketball have gone and come up with a completely new look once again. I mean, seriously, how is US basketball going to have any hope of being taken seriously if every few years they go and change tack? Take the Dutch with their iconic orange jerseys, or the iconic Italian azure or the iconically iconic horizontal light blue stripes of the Argentinian team; is it any wonder that the US perennially under performs considering how they lack iconicness?

BurghFan|
July 9, 2014 at 8:30 am |

I’m not sure about “perennially under performs”, but you had me laughing out loud.

terriblehuman|
July 9, 2014 at 8:58 am |

You know, they haven’t medaled at the Olympics since 2012!

Adam R. W.|
July 9, 2014 at 12:33 pm |

Seriously… Only 3 Olympic gold medals since 2000… We ought to be winning Olympic gold every year.

In Drayton McLain’s hay day, the gray Houston Astros top would only ever be worn once, by ASG representatives. I think Craig Biggio asked to wear all gray in his final away game, so the team literally needed to produce a set of their official road tops!

Steve Naismith|
July 9, 2014 at 5:20 pm |

The team wore red jerseys on the road more often than not, but still wore grey on the road plenty of times besides the ASG.

BurghFan|
July 9, 2014 at 8:35 am |

I don’t claim to be an expert on Topps airbrushing, but i don’t think you’d see all the scratches if that was an airbrush job. Maybe Fred just throw on the nearest helmet, which happened to be blank after having the pirate removed, and Topps was going to add the P before he was traded.

(I don’t know if anyone can put us in touch with him, or if he’d remember any of this, but it looks like Patek is still alive.)

Yeah, I’d agree that the Patek card isn’t airbrushed, great find! I’m guessing that pic was taken at Shea Stadium in 1970 (since a large number of Topps NL cards were taken there).

JimWa|
July 9, 2014 at 8:37 am |

Maybe my return from Disney World three weeks ago is still clouding my mind, but before I could see Mel Gibson’s shadow, it took me a while to STOP seeing a shadow of Mickey Mouse on that Pirates helmet.

Dumb Guy|
July 9, 2014 at 9:01 am |

Hidden Mickey!

just Joe|
July 9, 2014 at 11:07 am |

Toni Basil’s lesser-known prequel?

Bernie|
July 9, 2014 at 8:43 am |

The map showing what’s due east and west of North America is neat, but misleading. If you were in Brooklyn, and got in a boat headed east (and never steered), you wouldn’t end up in Portugal, as the map suggests, but in Western Sahara. That’s because (as you may have heard) the Earth is round. If you headed straight, you’d travel directly over the top of the sphere. In order to go DUE east, you’d need to constantly steer a little bit left. A more interesting map is an Azimuthal map, which shows the rest of the world relative to a central location. You can make your own here: http://ns6t.net/azimuth/azimuth.html. New York’s coordinates are about 40.651474, -73.958777. Set the distance to 8000 to see across the ocean.

DenverGregg|
July 9, 2014 at 9:05 am |

It also skips quite a bit. For instance, Sicily is due east of here, as is a swath of western and central Asia, but they’re not listed options.

I’m not sure what you mean… if you follow a line of latitude around the globe, are you not going “due east/west”? I mean, unless you’re going for an absolute value of east and west which isn’t based on the magnetic poles but on the actual top and bottom of the planet as seen from space, meaning everything is shifted due to the axial tilt.

Bernie|
July 9, 2014 at 12:10 pm |

When you start your journey, you’ll be facing east, but as you head straight on the sphere of the planet, your heading will change. It’s why flights from the US to Europe go in what appears to be a big arc up over Newfoundland, rather than “straight” across. In fact, they are going straight (as you can see in the azimuthal map), but on a normal flat map of the world, it looks like an arc.

I like to imagine when I’m at the beach that if I were tall enough, I would be able to look east and see the other side of the ocean. But if you were facing east, your vision wouldn’t travel due east, it would follow the curvature of the earth.

Bernie|
July 9, 2014 at 12:12 pm |

Another way to think about it: If you were on the equator and headed east, then you would stay east the whole time.

Tom V.|
July 9, 2014 at 12:24 pm |

If you’re in NYC facing east and start going straight you will end up in Africa. But if you’re in NYC facing east and continue going due east (following a set longitude) you’ll end up in Portugal, which is what that graphic was showing.

duker|
July 9, 2014 at 12:40 pm |

I don’t think you understand what “East” means.

Adam|
July 9, 2014 at 8:52 am |

Wow, does that story about the DC (more likely parent company WB) not allowing the ‘S’ logo on the boy’s memorial ever piss me off. Not wanting their logo associated with child abuse would be a valid concern if, for example, NAMBLA wanted to use it on brochures, but this is completely different. The poor kid obviously suffered a great deal at the hands of some real monsters and yet had the courage to still be a happy child who loved Superman. What an opportunity they could have had to raise awareness, squandered by brainless, heartless “brand experts.” Gross.

David|
July 9, 2014 at 9:18 am |

I couldn’t disagree more. After reading the article, it feels to me like DC gave it careful thought, felt concern for the family, but didn’t want to start a trend of superhero gravestones.

Gene Simmons may want to sell a KISS coffin, but that doesn’t mean everyone has to.

Copyright and trademark owners have rights as to how those symbols are used, and there’s enough reason for concern here not to vilify DC the way you’re doing here.

As much as members of this site seem tired of the military pandering “for the troops”, let’s not destroy a company because they didn’t do something as innocuous as keep their logo off a grave marker.

Adam|
July 9, 2014 at 9:38 am |

Agreed, they are perfectly within their right to police the use of their logo. That’s not up for debate. However, I’m not sure where you got to the point of “not wanting to start a trend,” as the reason behind their decision.

The article clearly states that it seems their decision was driven by the fact that, “they didn’t want to have the character of Superman associated with child abuse,” which I think is an absurd reason to disallow it.

The article clearly states that it seems their decision was driven by the fact that, “they didn’t want to have the character of Superman associated with child abuse,”

Actually, no. The article clealry states that’s the opinion of the man who raised money for the statue. We don’t know the actual reason for the company’s decision.

David|
July 9, 2014 at 11:05 am |

Dc didn’t really make a statement… The child abuse association may have been what they told the family, but it’s not a simple decision for the company, and they aren’t required to lay out every reason why they decide this isn’t a good fit for the brand.
– It’s really morbid
– It doesn’t help the child… too late for that.
– yes, there’s an association to an abused child.
– (my opinion here) it will start a trend of parents who all think their sick or abused children were “superheroes” in their fight… why can’t they all have superhero gravestones?

If I’m DC, these add up to presenting a respectful no.
I’d like to give kudos to the family or the sculptor for even asking. I’ll be this happens all the time without permission, and then DC has to look even more heartless for protecting their marks.

Nope. Good on them either way. I applaud them for being thoughtful and considerate, and changing their mind in favor of a greiving family, if it suits them to do so.

hugh.c.mcbride|
July 9, 2014 at 4:56 pm |

This incident with DC — and especially the potential for a “slippery slope” — reminded me of an episode from the first season of The West Wing.

In the episode, a homeless veteran dies on a park bench, & the White House Communications Director, Toby Ziegler, uses the president’s name to arrange for an honor guard at the vet’s funeral. (The man had been wearing a coat that Toby had donated, & since his card was in the pocket, the police who found the body called him.)

The president discovers that his name has been used, which leads to this exchange:

* Pres Bartlet: Toby, if we start pulling strings like this, you don’t think every homeless veteran would come out of the wood works?

* Toby: I can only hope, sir.

I’m neither a captain of industry nor a legal scholar, but this much I know: If your corporate policy “requires” you to stop a family from honoring their deceased child, you need to take a long hard look at that policy.

I don’t do my own captions (or choose my own photos, for that matter) and hadn’t noticed that — thanks. I’ll get my editor to fix.

scottrj|
July 9, 2014 at 9:32 am |

Re the Stengel picture: from a paper titled “How It All Began” written by Lawrence S. Ritter (author of the classic early baseball history “The Glory of Their Times”) –

“Gloves remained more or less the same from around 1900 to mid-1950s. The ball was caught in the “pocket” of the glove, covering the palm of the hand, and it was held with the fingers. The fingers of the glove were short and fairly flexible. The only purpose of the glove was to protect the palm and fingers from injury, although until the 1930s many players insisted on cutting a rather large hole in the palm of the glove in order to grip the ball better.”

In his autobiography, “Nice Guys Finish Last,” Leo Durocher wrote that Hall of Famer Rabbit Maranville gave him his first glove (they were from the same home town). Before he presented it, Maranville took a pair of shears and cut a hole in the pocket. Durocher wore the glove for years and when he finally had to replace it, he started to cut a similar hole. Instead he slit the lining on the inside of the glove, and took out the padding in the pocket. Those were the only two gloves he ever used.

Leo Strawn Jr|
July 9, 2014 at 1:42 pm |

Great info, guys! I was born in ’61, so since that was standard practice just a generation or so prior to my birth (and my family were huge Reds fans, aside from Grandpa, who followed the Tribe all his life), you’d think I would have read or seen a photo or run across that info at some point, but this was news to me.

And thanks to Paul for posting that so we could get an answer to that mystery!

Cheers!

Steve Naismith|
July 9, 2014 at 5:22 pm |

Similar to hockey players cutting out the palm of their gloves to grip the stick better.

When I was 10, 11, 12 yrs old, I was certain that I was going to grow up to become a ballplayer. So I’d take baseball cards of crappy players I had doubles and triples of and practice signing my name on them. Because hey, I’d need to know how to fit my autograph into a baseball card-sized space!

I’d also make sure to practice on a few horizontal cards, just in case my own card turned out to be horizontal. Be prepared, right?

I don’t know what it’s like over there, but here footballers now just do a squiggle and add their squad number.

Dumb Guy|
July 9, 2014 at 10:54 am |

My signature has deteriorated over the years. But i have a long name and am tired of writing it all out after 50 years.

Also, when a band I was in was having moderate success back in the 90’s we had to do a CD release/signing thing. From the beginning to the end of that event my “autograph” got messier and messier (lazier and lazier).

name redacted|
July 9, 2014 at 10:28 am |

Brazil abandoned their whitte kit for the now famous yellow kit following the home lossin 1950 World Cup in Brazil. Will they give up the yellow kit after yesterday ‘s embarassment

George Chilvers|
July 9, 2014 at 10:37 am |

Spooky same-thought-at-same-moment scenario!!

El Duderino|
July 9, 2014 at 4:53 pm |

No, but I do think they should add green socks with yellow accents to their primary kit.

George Chilvers|
July 9, 2014 at 10:30 am |

The last time Brazil were humiliated in a World Cup in their own country they changed their kit, binning white shirts for posterity, and adopting the now iconic yellow and green shirts.

What are the chances, do you think, of them being so traumatised by yesterday’s result, that they adopt a new kit to wash away the memory?

terriblehuman|
July 9, 2014 at 10:35 am |

Redesign the Brazil kit, you say? I hear the sound of salivating Nike execs.

For this year, they had an all-dark green kit, with shorts striped to resemble a surfer’s. They wore it on the day before their first match, in the one hour practice at Arena Corinthians.

superfly|
July 9, 2014 at 11:44 pm |

They should bust out the green kit for the 3rd place game, might as well….

Phil Hecken|
July 9, 2014 at 12:22 pm |

I smell a mid-summer design contest…

DenverGregg|
July 9, 2014 at 10:46 am |

The day before this one ‘twas said by Conn,
Commenting on ligature and so on,
To come back on this day to for us to see
Comments upon Chaucer’s orthographie.
Thus far I’ve looked both high and wide in vain!
Will swich comments be here to entertain?
Or have I — red-faced — fallen for a ruse?

Dumb Guy|
July 9, 2014 at 10:59 am |

Tupac?

Connie DC|
July 9, 2014 at 11:33 am |

Sweet versifying, DG!

My expertise is generally sham and my promises reliably forfeit.

DenverGregg|
July 9, 2014 at 11:55 am |

That second sentence – in Latin of course – would make a fine armorial motto.

Next you’re going to say that the Beliebers should have their own schools!

Mike Chamernik|
July 9, 2014 at 1:05 pm |

That article really bugs me, for some reason. It’s OK for private businesses to have dress codes. If you can’t meet their (super, super moderate and reasonable) requirements, go elsewhere. I’m guessing Minneapolis has a ton of bars.

Last year some friends and I tried to get into a Ranchero bar, but since we were wearing baseball hats, shorts and tennis shoes, they didn’t let us in. Are they banning people who aren’t of the Ranchero cultural subgroup?? Nah. They just wanted a certain dress vibe for their establishment. We walked to another bar.

But if those dress codes appear to be targeting clothing worn by certain racial demographics, then it’s also OK to publicly call them on it.

terriblehuman|
July 9, 2014 at 2:43 pm |

And unless we’re playing really, really dumb, the Bar Louie dress code is targeting people who we euphemistically like to say, “dress like gangsters”.

I mean, we all know what the NBA dress code was about, right? It wasn’t because Americans were freaked out by that Canadian thug Steve Nash wearing t-shirt and jeans.

HHH|
July 9, 2014 at 11:04 am |

Why did it take 23 years before another non-green football field came into existence???

You’d think all the attention Boise State got for the smurf turf in 1986 would’ve made at least one other school want a uniquely colored field of their own soon after. Did it seriously take all the way until 2009 before another non-green field appeared? And of course, it’s another blue field. Didn’t it dawn on New Haven that Boise State *might* be a little pissed that they wouldn’t be the only college football team with a blue field anymore? And why would you want to be the SECOND school with a blue field??? New Haven’s colors are blue and yellow so instead of being the second college football team with a blue field, wouldn’t you rather be the FIRST and ONLY one with a yellow field??? Sooooo stupid!!!!

Also I thought of the idea of flavored mouthguards when I was playing high school football in the mid 90’s. The idea has probably crossed the minds of countless teens playing football in the mouthguard era over the years so I’m glad someone who was in a position to make it a reality finally did.

DenverGregg|
July 9, 2014 at 11:13 am |

I had a mint-flavored mouthguard in 1974. The flavor didn’t last very long, but as bad as it tasted, that was actually a good thing.

walter|
July 9, 2014 at 11:20 am |

Thanks, Daniel Salinas, for those spiffy All-Star pictures. The 1982 A.L. portrait is a great documentation of Oakland’s green cleats.

Connie DC|
July 9, 2014 at 11:35 am |

“… Just in case you didn’t get yesterday’s Germany/Brazil score, the BBC clarified it for you (thanks, Mike)…”

Pretty funny! Gotta say, I can’t remember a more stunning halftime score in any game.

Alvin|
July 9, 2014 at 11:36 am |

I work for SNY and was directed to your blog by an associate

The amount of complaints we’ve received regarding that Braves logo is a grand total of.

0

So the problem is what exactly? Because there doesn’t seem to be one with our viewers.

Hi, Alvin. You’re making a straw man argument — nobody’s suggesting that you faced an avalanche of viewer response.

However:

1. According the MLB Style Guide, the Indian head logo is not an official Braves primary or secondary logo. They do use it on some merchandise, but it is not currently an official team mark.

2. When the Braves considered using that logo on a BP cap a few years ago, there was a storm of response about the logo being inappropriate, so they scrapped the caps.

3. Last week SNY showed a Turner Field fan dressed up as an Indian, and Gary Cohen made a pointed comment about it. So your graphics may be at odds with the sensibility of your play-by-play man.

4. At a time when there’s a national discussion taking place about sports teams’ use of Native American imagery, using the Indian head logo is an interesting choice.

Does this mean most of your viewers found the logo problematic? No. But does that mean the issue isn’t worth raising and discussing? Also no. (For what it’s worth, this site’s owner and weekend editor are both regular SNY viewers and both had issues with the logo. So there you go.)

Thanks for checking in.

P.S. I tried to contact Alvin off-site to explain/discuss further, but he’s using a bogus email address. Disappointing.

Phil Hecken|
July 9, 2014 at 12:33 pm |

Also — the night that graphic was shown (Monday), Gary Cohen again made a couple comments about the logo. I didn’t DVR the game (the Mets are lucky I even watch anymore, especially since that was their camo night), and unfortunately I can’t recall specifically what he said, but it wasn’t particularly supportive of the use of the logo.

In my tweet of that image, I did NOT make any value judgments or disparaging remarks (other than referring to it as the “Screaming Brave” logo, which may or may not be the correct name, I honestly do not know) on the logo. If you read the comment string, it was naturally assumed I was disparaging it. Of course, the usual mature replies ensued (I particularly liked the “I think it’s time to change your tampon, Phil” remark).

One could, in fact, infer from the comments that most of those who did comment SUPPORT the use of that particular logo. Obviously, from that small sample size, we must conclude that not only is no one offended by its use, but I need to shut my whiny pie-hole.

It’s a shame Mr. Alvin didn’t leave a real address. It might be nice to discuss the use of the logo in a forum such as this at some point.

I personally see nothing particularly wrong with the logo, but it *is* outdated. The team doesn’t actively use it, so a TV station shouldn’t either (unless the game is going to be a throwback event or something). This is equivalent to seeing a broadcast using a Browns helmet with a white facemask.

scottrj|
July 9, 2014 at 1:16 pm |

To be fair, the all-caps STILL in your tweet at least potentially lends itself to a reading of it as containing a value judgment…

Phil Hecken|
July 9, 2014 at 1:29 pm |

Fair enough — but as you’re probably aware, with tweets, one is limited to the amount of characters, and thus back-stories are nigh-on impossible.

The “STILL” was pointing out that SNYtv had used the logo before (and the logo, offensive or not, is NOT an official one in any capacity and thus, should not [necessarily] be used), and hadn’t changed it to either the current primary or current secondary logos. By any measure the Screaming/Laughing Brave hasn’t been used by the Braves officially since 1989.

Granted, the Mr. Met skipping logo hasn’t been used by the Mets since (at least according to sportslogos) 1998 — although he is now on their blue jerseys as a sleeve patch, so perhaps Chris’ page needs to be updated (I don’t have the 2014 official team logos handy — perhaps Paul can confirm if Mr. Met is back to being official).

So — to your point — yes, it could be inferred as a value judgement, but it was more indicating that SNYtv used the outdated logo before and was continuing to do so.

Do I feel it’s offensive and should no longer be used? Yes, but no where was I saying (or implying) that.

I love today’s lede. Somebody’s got to know something about that mysterious logo (which, back in the day, I referred to as GI Joe)

Meanwhile, that Patek card is another example of the excellent card aesthetics back in the day. I loved that particular ’71 design–business-like, almost clinical, but warmed by the all-lower case player name. And then were the awkward poses, the too close close-ups, the blank helmets, (the scratched up helmets), the over-sized caps, the exquisitely rushed air brushed logos, the windbreakers and glasses the crooked teeth and bad skin and three day beards before they became cool….

scottrj|
July 9, 2014 at 1:22 pm |

Well, the 1971 Topps set IS considered one of (perhaps the) most iconic design they ever came up with. What you mention, along with including the first-ever action shots, some of them rendered horizontally even. A truly classic set – I mean, even though as a player I loathed him b/c he was just damn good, this has got to be on the short list of best baseball cards ever (tagging out a sliding pitcher, no less):http://topps1971.blogspot.com/2012/01/no-5-thurman-munson.html#comment-form

Oh, man, I remember opening a pack and getting that card and being blown away by it. Such a contrast to the typical card. It was like striking gold, that card.

Funny though, when action shots became more common than posed shots, I became less interested in cards. The imagination couldn’t read much into an action shot, as cool as they are. Something was lost.

And thanks for the link to the website! I’m sure I’ll spend many hours reliving the summer of my 11th year.

bobby murphy|
July 9, 2014 at 12:56 pm |

I had the opportunity yesterday to be a part of a Notre Dame Under Armour photoshoot and was able to see next years home and shamrock series football uniforms. Although I was not allowed to take photos of the uniforms I would like to try to describe them as best I can.

Home Uniform
Base – The base layer is blue with script words at the top reading “God, Country” followed by a large ND monogram across the chest. The sleeves are also blue with touching gold and white stripes at the ends.
Socks – Blue, featuring the same striping pattern as the base layer.
Pants – feature a ND monogram on the left hip and an under armour logo on the right hip. They remain otherwise unchanged as far as I can tell. The color remains near identical to last season.
Jersey – Blue Jersey with Under Armour cut. ND Monograms at the sleeves. Under Armour logo on the left chest side. No logo on the neckline (which surprised me).
Helmet – Unchanged

Shamrock Series Uniform
Base – Blue with complex gothic gating style gold designs which form a large cross over the chest with a monogram ND in the middle.
Pants – Blue with gold diagonal stripes extending from the knee about a third of the way up the pant towards the thigh. I believe this will be the first time that Notre Dame has ever worn blue pants.
Jersey – Blue with gold lettering. The lower part of the sleeves are gold as well with blue ND monogram logos. Gold collar.
Helmet – Gold with blue monogram logo. Probably my favorite part about the uniform.
The shamrock series uniforms, as far as I can tell, have no white on them, an interesting contrast to adidas’ white on whites last year.

Sorry again I couldn’t get pictures, they wouldn’t let me even pull out my phone if I was close.

bmurphy|
July 9, 2014 at 4:25 pm |

Looking through other under armour pants pictures I realized that Notre Dame might be wearing the infamous butt-stripe pants.

I can’t be positive because I never saw the reverse side of the uniforms. But that is the angle of the striping on the front side.

Connie DC|
July 9, 2014 at 4:58 pm |

“…The base layer is blue with script words at the top reading ‘God, Country’ followed by a large ND monogram across the chest…”

Speaking as a member of a Notre Dame family whose father played football there, this news item makes me want to puke.

DJ|
July 9, 2014 at 5:07 pm |

It’s the base layer; no one will see it during a game. Besides, it’s made to appeal to the aesthetics of 17-21 year olds.

Reminds me of when David Beckham and the English national team went to visit Nelson Mandela. One of the journalists asked Mandela what he thought of Beckham’s hairstyle. “I am too old,” he replied “to intelligently comment on the styles and fashions of young people.”

That should clinch the deal that the smiling Pirate logo was worn in 1970.

My question is: did this helmet see game action?

Gusto4044|
July 9, 2014 at 6:12 pm |

It appears so, because the Stargell photo looked like it was taken before a regular season game. There wouldn’t be any reason to have a different logo on a batting helmet. My guess is this was a brief experiment.

Steve Blass was on that 1970 team, and has been a team broadcaster for some time, could possibly help in this matter.

BurghFan|
July 9, 2014 at 9:57 pm |

Stargell could have worn that helmet during BP and his regular “P” helmet during the game.

George Chilvers|
July 9, 2014 at 4:02 pm |

Argentina in black shorts.
Holland in white shorts.

Just as it should be. :)

Thomas J|
July 9, 2014 at 4:04 pm |

B-E-A-utiful.

pflava|
July 9, 2014 at 4:07 pm |

Beautiful! And an unexpected surprise.

terriblehuman|
July 9, 2014 at 4:08 pm |

Yup, very pleasantly surprised.

terriblehuman|
July 9, 2014 at 4:16 pm |

BTW, is Argentina wearing black shorts and socks in mourning for Di Stefano, or was this predetermined?

Kinda like it without the accents – highlighter allusions and all. I think the black accents detract from Argentina’s stripes.

terriblehuman|
July 9, 2014 at 4:59 pm |

I’m thinking the stripes on the Argentina shorts make them look really blocky. But minor quibbles.

Padday|
July 9, 2014 at 5:10 pm |

You might have a point there. And the blue stripe on the socks is just a little awkward looking too.

superfly|
July 9, 2014 at 6:22 pm |

Agreed on black accents.

El Duderino|
July 9, 2014 at 5:01 pm |

Halcyon days have finally arrived!

DJ|
July 9, 2014 at 9:02 pm |

I believe Germany will be the home team Sunday; if so, they’ll wear all white, and Argentina will break out their all-royal blue strip for the first time.

Rydell|
July 9, 2014 at 10:23 pm |

Two of the best looking uniformed teams in MLB playing tonight but Pittsburgh is ruining it with their slo-pitch jerseys. Geez if they are gonna wear those tops at least wear black or yellow pants! Couldn’t get much worse with the way they are looking tonight.

Exalt|
July 12, 2014 at 8:04 am |

Email marketing has proved to be one of the most effective digital promotion techniques, with its capacity to reach a vast audience very quickly and at the lowest cost. That is why it’s important not to underestimate the technical aspects of email delivery. Now common email providers like Yahoo! Mail or Gmail do not allow you to send unlimited emails at once: they have some strict limitations both for the number of messages and the number recipients you can handle per day.bulk email service